The Purpose of Government is Freedom

[CrimsonWhite]

Laws such as anti-drug laws are certainly restrictions on freedom, but laws such as anti-theft laws or laws against murder are not.

In your opinion. Ask OJ and he would tell you different.

Red herring.

O.J was acquitted by jury that was basically rigged by the judicial oligarchy.

I was being facetious and sarcastic, you know, satirically speaking.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...but...um....uhhhh....er......shit.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

De jure government isn't a "control on society".....It's a framework of recompense against the antisocial.

Good people need no control.

Name a type of Government that does not create LAWS. Laws are restrictions on what you can legally do.

Laws which seek to restrict the actions of otherwise peaceful and nonviolent people are, as a matter of course, unjust and unworthy of the mantle of "American".

Deal with it.

You haven't a clue. The discussion is on Freedom. Laws restrict freedoms. In the United States you are restricted from doing MANY MANY things. Some of those restrictions are of course needed and beneficial to a large society that must restrain the less even keeled of its population. some of the laws are not needed and are not beneficial at all.

I happen to believe of all the Governments present in the world we have the best, but it is not what it is supposed to be by a long shot.

Take your dick out of your hand, we are not measuring our manhood here. We are talking about what a Government exists to do. And restricting freedoms is the main purpose of all Governments. That is HOW they Govern. That is why the Colonies wanted the Bill of Rights. A list of what the Government could not restrict.

 

[ihopehefails]

De jure government isn't a "control on society".....It's a framework of recompense against the antisocial.

Good people need no control.

Name a type of Government that does not create LAWS. Laws are restrictions on what you can legally do.

Laws which seek to restrict the actions of otherwise peaceful and nonviolent people are, as a matter of course, unjust and unworthy of the mantle of "American".

Deal with it.

I'm glad someone pointed this out because if I am just sitting here minding my own business and not harming anyone else then why should I be 'restrained' in my actions?

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong, A Government exists to control the citizenry, depending on the type of Government determines the base level of that Control. A Government PROTECTS citizenry by restricting citizenry. Laws are a restriction on your ultimate freedom.

I know what you are saying but some people like to restrict the freedom of others such as theft. Theft is an involuntary act between two individuals where the freedom of one person is being denied to them by another as in the freedom to say "hay get the hell out of my car!" and have that command honored by the theif. A government that protects freedom protects that person's freedom over their own property thus uses its restrictive powers to stop others from removing the freedom of others.

True freedom is anarchy. And it is very violent and messy except in very small communities. Governments are a CONTROL. They exist to RESTRICT freedom. How much and what kind is determined by the type of Government.

You can have autonomy (as some people use anarchy to mean) WITHOUT
lawlessness (as anarchy is more traditionally defined).

I believe in ISONOMY where people are equally responsibile for enforcing laws, regardless of standing, while still taking into account differences in education levels and roles.

Since different people have their own political and religious biases, and preferences to which institutions and affiliations they ascribe to or use to represent their interests, I would recommend organizing an unofficial third house as in Congress but outside the government and independently run by people, where there is representation by Party.

Then have all issues addressed in working groups, and submit recommendations made by consensus to government before policies or decisions are made. Both the points of agreement should be addressed, as well as the points of dissension that should be equally represented. So all conflicts should be resolved by mediation before laws are decided.

This would better uphold equal religious freedom, protection of the laws, and consent of the governed without imposing on dissenting opinions or obstruction by competing views.

 

[emilynghiem]

De jure government isn't a "control on society".....It's a framework of recompense against the antisocial.

Good people need no control.

Government is supposed to reflect the "consent of the governed."
So it is the collective representation of the individuals making up its constituency.

When we the people, as a team or a nation, agree to follow certain laws and
standards, then we invoke collective authority and resources to maintain that.

This "top down" management model, where leaders at the head of the church and state "dictate policy" for members perceived as having less power is actually backwards.

This imbalance in hierarchy came about over history because of the higher literacy levels focused in the church clergy, while the workers and masses were generally less educated.
So all the property laws (and marriage laws controlling women and children as property of the estate) were biased toward owners and managers, over the poor and less educated.

Now, since education is becoming more accessible, more workers can form their own cooperatives and share in ownership. The localizing of democracy does NOT have to negate free enterprise or instigate fear of socialist or communist regimes taking over.

By making business and legal education equally free and accessible to all, this will increase not decrease participation in the democratic process and in global society.

We will still have centralized governments organized in states and city-states, but there will be more "localized" representation and self-governed economies. So the accountability will be increased by more direct check, and this will reduce the top-heavy bureaucracies that have become corrupted and abused where too few are in charge over too many.

 

[uscitizen]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

So we choose people to run our lives and call it freedom?
That is messed up.

 

[Contumacious]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

What?

I thought government is supposed to steal from "A" in order to give to "B"? They are supposed to feed me, clothe me, shelter me.

A Welfare State Government BUY the people.

.

 

[boedicca]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

It depends upon the form of government. Monarchies, dictatorships, and the totalitarian ISMs certainly don't exist to protect freedom.

The U.S Constitution was designed to limit government in order to protect Inalieanable Rights (given to individuals by The Creator). Sadly, our elected representatives seem to think we are French and that our rights are the gift of the state.

 

[emilynghiem]

De jure government isn't a "control on society".....It's a framework of recompense against the antisocial.

Good people need no control.

Name a type of Government that does not create LAWS. Laws are restrictions on what you can legally do.

Laws are social contracts between people and/or institutions.

I believe in following the laws that people already agree to, without creating more.
Unless the people involved agree to write up their own contracts to serve a purpose.

What we need is more mediation and conflict resolution, to settle issues or disputes that otherwise cause problems or costs; not instituting more legislation to try to compel people or groups to change against their will. That just fuels more political backlash and bullying.

If people are too busy solving problems directly, we don't need third party
"government" or "political candidates" stepping in to impose outside control or authority.

A big problem we face now is that Corporations abuse dual status as both individuals with rights under the Constitution and as collective resources to act with greater influence, so that there are not equal checks and balances as with governmental institutions.

In order to restore the balance of powers and equal respect for law, people as individual citizens, in corporations, or in government, should all be held to the same standards of law instead of giving immunity or favor to those with greater legal or political force.

The best way I know to enforce equal standards of law is freely by education, including conflict resolution of real issues to teach publicly by example. If I had to recommend legislation, I would urge local districts to organize neighborhood ordinances where residents agree freely to implement Constitutional education and mediation training, along with corrections and restitution for crime or corruption, as required to live there.

ethics-commission.net

 

[G.T.]

Are we doing this again? Freedom cannot exist, in Nature, whatsoever.

Saying laws don't restrict freedoms is a nuance. Just because someone would be infringing on your "freedom" by doing something illegal, the fact it's illegal infringes on his freedom also. You're just using nuance here.

Freedom cannot exist in Nature. It's impossible.

 

[ihopehefails]

Are we doing this again? Freedom cannot exist, in Nature, whatsoever.

Saying laws don't restrict freedoms is a nuance. Just because someone would be infringing on your "freedom" by doing something illegal, the fact it's illegal infringes on his freedom also. You're just using nuance here.

Freedom cannot exist in Nature. It's impossible.

I define freedom as living your life in a voluntary manor with other people. I choose to give up some freedom to work for someone else in exchange for money but if I did not make that choice to give up my freedom in exchange for something else then I would be a slave to my employer which would be a state of nonfreedom. I make a similar agreement with my government that I will give some freedoms in exchange you use that power for things I want you to use it for. When that agreement is broken then I can revoke that power from them and if the government denies me the ability to revoke/quit then I am in a state of nonfreedom.

 

[G.T.]

I define freedom as living your life in a voluntary manor with other people. I choose to give up some freedom to work for someone else in exchange for money but if I did not make that choice to give up my freedom in exchange for something else then I would be a slave to my employer which would be a state of nonfreedom. I make a similar agreement with my government that I will give some freedoms in exchange you use that power for things I want you to use it for. When that agreement is broken then I can revoke that power from them.

So basically you redefine freedom to match how "technically" free you feel we "should" be, and call it a day. I see. Well, in reality, freedom cannot exist.

 

[ihopehefails]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

It depends upon the form of government. Monarchies, dictatorships, and the totalitarian ISMs certainly don't exist to protect freedom.

The U.S Constitution was designed to limit government in order to protect Inalieanable Rights (given to individuals by The Creator). Sadly, our elected representatives seem to think we are French and that our rights are the gift of the state.

This is kind of off topic but I always thought that totalitarian societies behave almost like theocracies where politics of the state substitutes for religious doctrine of the theocracy. That is just my observation though.

 

[boedicca]

Freedom is not the same as Anarchy.

An individual's freedom ends where he interferes with that of another against that other's will (i.e., freedom precludes Force, Coercion, and Fraud).

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

WOW!!! How do you reconcile that with SO MANY "conservative" principles that TAKE FREEDOMS AWAY!!! Mostly from SMALL minorities!!!

 

[boedicca]

This is kind of off topic but I always thought that totalitarian societies behave almost like theocracies where politics of the state substitutes for religious doctrine of the theocracy. That is just my observation though.

Very insightful. Secular totalitarian states substitute The Creator for The State. It is a form of secular religion with the ruling elite in the self-appointed status of demi-gods.

 

[boedicca]

WOW!!! How do you reconcile that with SO MANY "conservative" principles that TAKE FREEDOMS AWAY!!! Mostly from SMALL minorities!!!

Please list those conservsative principles and explain how they take freedoms away (and what those freedoms are) from small minorities.

 

[ihopehefails]

Thats it. It doesn't exist for jobs, economy, health care, and etc. It just exist for the protection of the individual's freedom. All government policy should be weighed by what provides the most freedom for the individual.

WOW!!! How do you reconcile that with SO MANY "conservative" principles that TAKE FREEDOMS AWAY!!! Mostly from SMALL minorities!!!

This actually illustrates how conservatives and 'liberals' see freedom. Conservatives and libertarians see it as something that exist in the absence of government control. It allows a person to conduct their lives with the least resistance from government. Most conservatives were against some laws that gave special privelages to minorities but never once created laws that restricted the rights of any minority from conducting their life in the absence of government.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Abortion!!!
Gay rights to MARRIAGE!!!
Laws forbidding certain sexual practices that both gays AND straights participate in!!!


Just to name a VERY few.